SUPREME COURT PRESIDENTIAL PETITION NO. 4 OF 2017 – NJONJO MUE & ANOTHER VS. THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL AND BOUNDARIES COMMISSION & 3 OTHERS
I have just completed reading the entire 140 paragraphs of the 41-paged petition and the 78 paragraphs of the 34-paged affidavit in support (of the Petition) sworn on behalf of both petitoners by the 1st Petitioner Njonjo MUE:
1. The Petition boasts of excellent draftsmanship and understanding of the relavant provisions of the law: the Constitution, municipal electoral laws (including the Elections Act and subsidiary legislations) as well as International Treaties applicable in Kenya by dint of the Constitution.
2. The Petitioners have exhibited a clarity of the context and factual basis for the petition with the issues (which are inter-related) having a perfect flow in a way that perfectly fit into the fourteen (14) reliefs sought.
3. The Petition is an all-round onslaught on the valididity of the 26th October 2017 presidential elections. It suggests that the election did not even take place. That it was void ab initio. That if however the Court holds that it was not void ab initio, then it was marred with negligence, criminality, irregularities and or illegalities.
4. It puts a strong case that the negligence, criminality, irregularities and or illegalities substantially affected the results. It challenges the constitutionality of the recently enacted Elections Laws (Amendment) Act, No. 34 of 2017.
5. The Petition therefore plays safe by attacking both the qualitative (process) as well as quantitative (results) aspect of the impugned election.
6. The petitioners also appear to impute criminality into the actions and or inactions of the 1st Respondent, the Chairperson of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission.
In summary, and in my very respectful view, the Petitione establishes a very good case and basis for the invalidation of the fresh Presidential election held in the 26th October 2017.Njono